 sj |
||
|
||
BS: What constitutes a bad post?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Dec 04 - 07:08 AM Joe's "we" means Jerry Rasmussen and many others of us. I'm sorry it doesn't mean "you," Shambles. You don't sound all that sorry that Joe's 'we' does not include me, but seem quite happy as long as it includes you. But as I said - it is a shame that Joe's 'we' never appears to mean 'us' anymore and that this further division and yet more exclusion is thought by anyone to be necessary on a public forum, when the object of all this censorship is supposed to be for the benefit all of 'us'. Jerry does one become part of Joe's 'we' only by always being in complete agreement with everything Joe may say or do and how do I now join and become part of Joe's 'we' - along with you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 04 - 06:16 AM A bad post is one that is sticky, such that as one passes it one's clothing adheres to said post and must be tugged violently in order to get loose. This can happen for a number of reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 05 Dec 04 - 05:49 AM Joe's "we" means Jerry Rasmussen and many others of us. I'm sorry it doesn't mean "you," Shambles. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: chris nightbird childs Date: 05 Dec 04 - 02:42 AM The proverbial "we"... which I have to take right now.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Dec 04 - 02:41 AM Let me explain about my use of pronouns: "I" means I did it - myself, alone, of my own accord. "We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category. "We" is never an individual. I never use the "royal we." The interesting, sad and most telling point - is that the words 'we' or 'I' used by you - never appears to mean 'us' anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:20 AM A bad post is one that has too damn much spearmint stuck onto it. Art Thieme (P.S.----and all the stuff did lose it's flavor from sitting there all night long.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Ellenpoly Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:19 AM So you'd rather I didn't refer to you in my correspondences with others at "His Lordship"??? ;-D Just joshing, Mr O. I know you'd eschew any Royal Confirmations as each good ol' Yankee should. ..xx..jez Miz Ellie to ma friends |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: katlaughing Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:16 AM The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method? It works, believe me, it works...one must also consider the numbers of members now as opposed to way back when this all started. As membership increases so do the postings, including the Mudcrap, which encourages more Mudcrappers...then before ya know the whole place is in the toilet but for Joe, Jeff, Max and the Clones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Dec 04 - 11:46 PM Let me explain about my use of pronouns:
"We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category. "We" is never an individual. I never use the "royal we." -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Dec 04 - 09:39 PM "...this forum remains a fine place." Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. So basically we are agreed, Shambles. We do on many things but I'm not sure we do here. Am I wrong in thinking that your comment - Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. was in response to the following in my post before it? The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: pdq Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:58 PM termites |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:51 PM A bad post is a post that talks back. I saw a drunk having an argument with a telephone pole one time, and it seemed to be talking back to him. He could hear it anyway, although I couldn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:02 PM "...this forum remains a fine place." Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. So basically we are agreed, Shambles. There are people from time to time who wish to use the Mudcat to make racist posts, or post vicious lying attacks on vulnerable people, and that kind of stuff. When that happens, I am grateful when that posts like that get blocked. Sometimes, perhaps, posts get removed that really don't deserve it, but nothing's perfect in this world. My suggestion about posting with a link indicates a way in which people who have their posts blocked, rightly or wrongly, can still have their say. They could even use it to find out if anyone else agreed with them that some post should not have been blocked or removed. I think that would be good enough for me, should that ever happen to a post I felt strongly about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Dec 04 - 06:33 PM Here, here, freda! I suppose if we're trying to be anywhere near democratic in here, then the will of most catters seems to be to accept, and at times even welcome some level of control from Joe. Jerry - i appreciate your very good intentions, however. The royal 'we' is the only 'we' that now appears to matter on this part of Max's site that is set aside for a forum for open public discussion forum. This royal 'we' - has made it clear over many years that they are not making any claim that 'we' are a democracy in any degree. Most long-term contributors have accepted this long-ago and also accpeted that there is little point in making the good natured pretence. Whether anyone should welcome any form of control from volunteer helpers like Joe is totally imaterial - as it is also made very clear that 'we' apparently have no choice. And as someone will now point out - if I don't like it I can go somwhere else. Despite this control freakery that has been imposed upon this forum - but because of Max's original concept and the many fine contributors - this forum remains a fine place. When the control freaks have finally succeded in making our forum ordered and ordinary - I may reconsider. Until then - the control freaks will just have to put up with comments from those who hold and express a different view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Dec 04 - 06:07 PM Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. The fact that we are still going around and around and these posts are still being responded to (in any way, including deleting them) and Joe contributes here and talks down to the rest of us in superior brown - partly as not to refresh threads like this one that he does not like - suggests that there may be something wrong with your vision. If anyone really wants to post something that would be liable to get excised - for example a personal attack on somebody, or a bunch of racist remarks - all they need to do it stuck it up on a website of their own, and put a link to it in a post here. I very much doubt if that would get removed, so everyone could be happy. Total freedom to say what you want, and total freedom for anyone else to click on the link and read it. This is the solution of course - why post anything on the Mudcat open discussion forum at all - why not use this suggested method for everything? Then the vandals with a little help from you and Joe - have won and Max's vision is lost.......... If you me and everyone else are free to ignore posts on another site - why can we not just do on this one and why can we all not be allowed to make that choice for ourselves here? Without Joe and his royal 'we' deciding for us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 04:59 PM That said from both Freda and Jerry, and said very well IMO, we'll see what happens from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Dec 04 - 04:54 PM Here, here, freda! I suppose if we're trying to be anywhere near democratic in here, then the will of most catters seems to be to accept, and at times even welcome some level of control from Joe. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: freda underhill Date: 04 Dec 04 - 04:41 PM what constitutes a bad post.. its when a post moves from discussing of debating ideas to making personal attacks. and i lump in gratuitous obscenity with that. the other issue is control - challenges to Joe and Max seem to be from people, no matter what they say, who cannot fundamentally accept that someone else has the right to manage this place, to have "control" over them. if 95%, or even 30% of catters were complaining about Joe and Max, there would be a problem. the fact that only one or two people are complaining suggest the problem lies with them. in children this is referred to as oppositional defiant disorder. but these children often grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 04:33 PM I'll have ten days to try that, Mc G of H. Good advice that I WILL take under advisement and consideration. One rule of sales: After one has sold the car, one should stop selling it. (If I knew how to make one of those 'grin' things here, I would, just to take the edge off that remark.) I appreciate the suggestion. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 04 - 04:30 PM It's strange how people repeatedly sneer at the idea of "turning the the cheek". It seems to me it's still a pretty good aspiration, even if all of us sometimes fall short. It's not a bad idea to write those justifiably angry responses and retorts, and push the Preview button to read them, but then miss out on pushing the Submit button. Save it instead to a file on your disc, at any rate until the next day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:57 PM "who can say "cocksucker" loudest" It's the people who know how to make the damn clickeys and italic type. IT'S THEM! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: mg Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:54 PM I think some things should be deleted, and some personal attacks on someone should be reacted to. If it is specific and filthy, as some are, then yes. To both. Generic diatribes or off-color or whatever, yes, should be ignored. But at some point, civilized people stand up against offensive things. We have to get back to the concept of common decency instead of pushing every boundary that has survived. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:51 PM OK. Then what are you going to do about those people who keep making personal attacks? I will cease responding to personal attacks for a period of ten days, and I will NOT make any: not through response, innuendo or implication. If nothing changes by the end of that ten-day period,, this deal is off. I am willing to try stuff, but turning the other cheek for friggin' ever ain't one of 'em. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:45 PM You know, it's not a matter of protecting Mudcatters from something that would be too shocking to them. Most of us are adults, and can tolerate a bit of that - especially if we all agree to let stuff like that slip by, and not make a big deal of it. It's the reaction to provocation that creates chaos, not the provocation itself. That's why we ask people not to respond to trolls. We delete the troll stuff when it appears necessary, but I think it's right to expect people to just let a lot of it slip by, ignored. There's a certain level of chaos where it's impossible for people to carry on a reasonable conversation; and I suppose we have to control that chaos somewhat, so reasonable people can feel comfortable here. Exercising that control is a guessing game, and it's not something that is going to satisfy everybody. I've learned that there are certain people who will never be satisfied with anything, so I do my best to ignore them. We try to edit sparingly, doing just enough to keep the peace. If we get the cooperation of our "regulars," we can get by with a lot less editing. If we have people who turn every untoward remark into a brawl, then we have a problem. There's certainly room for a little verbal sparring here - but the all-out brawls tend to create a mess of everything. If a substantial part of Mudcat becomes a contest to see who can say "cocksucker" loudest, the reasonable people tend to feel uncomfortable and leave. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 04 - 01:56 PM Any kind of direct response to a post that ought to be excised (and there are such posts) makes it harder to excise it, because, unless the response(s) are removed as well, it'll be hard to make sense of the thread. And the better and more interesting the response, the worse. Otherwise you end up with the original post permanently preserved, as has happened in this thread. If there has been a personal attack on us, or more relevantly, on someone else (as with a couple cited in this thread), it is possible to write a post that sets out to set the record straight but which makes no direct mention of the offending post; it can be written in such a way that it will still make sense, if that post is no longer there. That seems to me a much better way of going about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Dec 04 - 01:50 PM Huzzah for Joe: He cleans it up so I don't get it stuck to the bottom of my shoe. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Cluin Date: 04 Dec 04 - 01:32 PM Not only does he have to read it, he has to think about it and whether it deserves deleting and then has to do so, sometimes with a comment to explain his actions so that answering posts in the thread make more sense. Don't envy him that chore at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 01:30 PM "So, what's your point? What is it that you want, Brucie?" I believe I have had some posts deleted, too. You accused me of whining one day on a thread whereon I had RESPONDED to a troll. A number of people said not to respond to the troll. It was a bad thing to do. So, this time I didn't. I did not get into a pissin' contest with which ever troll it was this time. What do I want? Let me ask you that question, Joe. What do you want? If I have read you right, you do not want responses to trolls; nor do you want responses to personal attacks regardless of how they are worded. Is this right? Answer that last question for me and I will gladly answer yours. BM
If I have read you right, you do not want responses to trolls; nor do you want responses to personal attacks regardless of how they are worded. Is this right?
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Dec 04 - 01:22 PM Joe, my condolences--and thanks--this means that you have to read all of that trash. What an (otherwise) thankless job. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 04 - 12:24 PM Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. If anyone really wants to post something that would be liable to get excised - for example a personal attack on somebody, or a bunch of racist remarks - all they need to do it stuck it up on a website of their own, and put a link to it in a post here. I very much doubt if that would get removed, so everyone could be happy. Total freedom to say what you want, and total freedom for anyone else to click on the link and read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Dec 04 - 11:19 AM Bill I don't make the rules and nor do I want to - I have just posted on this open discussion forum for many years, under the impression that Max made the rules and if chose not to make them - I respected that view. It could well be that the increase in the level of gratuitous obscenity (that you refer to and I don't generally see and would not respond to if I did) is actually caused by the vain attempts to prevent it - by deleting only after it has been posted. The fact that this level has increased - according to you - must make it finally pretty clear that this method DOES NOT WORK. As it and all censorship is counter-productive - perhaps a return to Max's original concept would be worth a try? The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 04 - 08:20 AM if you want to get literal, Shambles...and it seems you do...NO rules would mean not only can folks post anything, but the management 'can' edit/delete anything also...that they do not usually delete YOUR complaints says a lot about tolerance. (and in 1999 Max did not have quite the volume of hate and racist stuff to consider...nor quite to level of gratuitous obscenity) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 04 - 08:04 AM Fionn, You are entirely correct about my using the 9/11 as a referemce point. I rarely use it because with what Bush has done to the events of that day has been to sanitize it fir politcial consumption. To me, it still represents a day where most people people were absolutely horrified. Guess I haven't been been able to compartmentize it as well as the general population. I should have searched for a less watered down event that everyone could relate to. But I can't think of any that carries the universality of horror that most everyone would get. And that was the point I was trying to make in explaining the mindset of the GUEST post in question. You perhaps have stated it better. Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:31 AM So what we get to see are Gargle's and Martin Gibbon's better posts? Sheesh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Dec 04 - 06:46 AM Max said Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. But the brown writing on the wall still says things like - Ask gargoyle or Martin Gibson how many of their posts get deleted. It's in the hundreds for each of them, I'm sure. Yes, we miss a few - and we rarely delete posts that are simply obnoxious and don't contain racism or personal attacks. So, what's your point? What is it that you want, Brucie? -Joe Offer- As the posters named are perfectly at home and along with nameless others will just carry on posting what they wish to - despite these noble but admittedly futile attempts to protect us from their contributions - perhaps it is now time to actually listen to what the site owner has stated? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 04 Dec 04 - 05:16 AM Thanks for putting in the missing bit Joe. The poster obviously has difficulty seeing his enemies as human beings. But isn't that condition a pre-requisite for the US military? What the training regime's all about? Is the guest's rant really that far removed from the way US troops hype themselves up as they prepare to "kick butt"? (And that's just the sanitised versions we see on the telly.) The post may be just a spoof of course, but if it's for real, it's a useful indicator of the hatreds that the US-UK axis is fomenting. And Bobert, how long can you go on dining out on 9/11? Some sense of perspective would surely be in order by now. There are plenty of ways you could measure the horrors of the world that would put 9/11 fairly low down the list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:17 AM Repo St. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:12 AM Is that a new word - re-post? Riposte? Reap oast? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: George Papavgeris Date: 04 Dec 04 - 03:11 AM Freda, you'll have to re-post with capitals and puctuation. Bee-dubya-el missed it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: chris nightbird childs Date: 04 Dec 04 - 02:52 AM Like one of those old stone Gargoyles, right? I always though those were cool. Kinda creepy though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Ellenpoly Date: 04 Dec 04 - 02:50 AM The only thing I assume is that most people posting on this site are adults. But that has little bearing on what they post. Read, or don't read. React or don't react. The choice is yours. Ignoring a post seems to be the most difficult thing for some folk to do. For me, it's only an indication that it doesn't take all that much to find and push people's buttons. Such is life. It's still up to each of us to choose what we say, how we say it, and if we care what the reaction might be to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 02:50 AM "But yes, generally we delete posts like these because we don't want hatemongers to feel they can make a home here." Surprise to me. Gargoyle feels QUITE at home here.
So, what's your point? What is it that you want, Brucie? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Dec 04 - 02:46 AM Yes, Brucie, I think that most reasonable people would consider these to be "bad posts," the ones we have asked you to ignore so that we can quietly dispose of them. But since you have so effectively called attention to them, people will wonder - so here they are: Subject: RE: BS: 3 Black Watch Soldiers killied From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 04 - 04:03 PM ha ha ha ha ha ha i told you ............ fuck the black wach fuck your sons and your dads and your husbands you will all die they will al come home in body bags you children will all be deformen your babyiz will be bourn like spaztikz fuck you all you wankers soul.true.ws this is what your so called mercenery soljers have done look whats really happening in iraq fuck you all remember ya troops will come home dead they will pay for here sins and so will you and you shitty little kids ha ha ha ha ha ha Subject: RE: BS: 3 Black Watch Soldiers killied From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 04 - 04:05 PM http://soul.true.ws <<< see the truth Why in the world would you think that these are NOT "bad posts? Because they hadn't been deleted within a minute after posting? Do you think we can afford to have staff review every message the moment it's posted - or that we would want to do that? But yes, generally we delete posts like these because we don't want hatemongers to feel they can make a home here. OK, now that you understand, please do not call attention to troll posts, and do not respond to them. Thank you. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 04 Dec 04 - 02:38 AM And now involved with yellow journalism. So, how ARE you Greg? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: chris nightbird childs Date: 03 Dec 04 - 10:45 PM One who Wanks = One who molests his willie, one who is not to be taken seriously, a tosser. (That's it, roughly...) ; ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 03 Dec 04 - 10:42 PM A...bad post within the past six months, on the mudcat.org-forum has seldom occured.....
With the exception of many/most postings from a current infant member of the community.
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 03 Dec 04 - 10:24 PM If there's one thing I can't abide its a whinging wanker.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Date: 03 Dec 04 - 10:15 PM What IS a wanker? It's a noun, but what IS it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Once Famous Date: 03 Dec 04 - 09:56 PM A bad post is one by a Brit that uses the word "wanker" in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 04 - 09:15 PM Yo, McG, Did you copy and paste the website? I did and I became enraged immediately without having to scrool down thur the various pictures of dead and badly wounded Iraqi kids... Had I not seen a couple of those pictures, I might also be questioning GUEST's rage... Bobert |
